On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Ted Husted wrote:
> > A component that is built by a project as part of the sandbox/agora isn't
> > supposed to be released to the public - because of quality concerns. Yet a
> > component that is accepted by commons commiters can be released, even if
> > it has a smaller set of commiters and less review.
>
> Code or documentation cannot be released to the public directly from the
> shared CVS for *legal* concerns regarding use of the Apache brand. All
> anyone has asked is that one of subprojects using this code release it
> with their own codebase. And that is all the clarified #20 says.
Can you explain a bit more - what are the legal concerns ? Most of
us are programmers, and I just can't get it - how the same piece of code
is "legal" if it is distributed as part of a jakarta project, but it is
ilegal if it is distributed standalone.
Does that mean that if tomcat is using a threadpool component it can't
release an upgrade of only the thread pool ? But it become legal if the
same package is distributed out of commons ?
And how is Apache brand protected by releasing code under a project where
most voter don't know what they vote on ( since they were not involved in
the development ), but it's not protected if the code is
released by a vote of the people who support and test it ?
Did we had any complaint from Sam or Roy regarding this process ? Is this
based on a lawyer advice - or just guessing ?
> "20. A CVS repository will be available to all Jakarta committers as a
> workplace for new packages or other projects. Before release to the
> public, code or documentation developed here must be accepted into the
> Commons or sponsored by another Jakarta subproject. The sponsoring
> subproject(s) will distribute the code or documentation along with the
> rest of their codebase."
>
> Again, this not just about Agora. We need to write this to apply to
> everyone who might also want to use the shared CVS to promote a new
> development model. Or work on any type of cross-product material,
> whether for submission to the Commons or not.
Again - I don't understand. "Agora" is when a jakarta project is
developing the code in the common repository and is taking responsibility
for it ( with other jakarta projects maybe ).
Other development models ( like experimental code, etc ) is not sponsored
by a project - if there is a project that supports and maintain the code
we are in Agora case. So how adding a restriction on Agora ( the case
where the code is developed by a project in common ) will affect the
case of "experimental" or "everyone" case.
> The shared CVS in the Commons is not meant to be Agora. We have tried to
> add language so it could be used like Agora, along with other things. At
> the time, the operative phrase was "close enough".
And now you basically change the language that was "close enough", with a
change that affects only Agora anyway.
( the clarification doesn't affect anything else - only the code that is
developed and supported by jakarta projects - for experimental code you
didn't added any change ).
> > and I have a problem with arguing that
> > a project that wants to release a stand-alone component out of
> > sandbox needs to get the aproval of commons.
>
> If the code were accepted into the Commons it would be moved to the
> Commons CVS. The guideline is the same for everyone.
And if a project would want to continue to develop the code in the common
workspace it'll not be able to distribute it standalone, and imply that
any component should be under the control of commons.
I'm sorry, but I don't think this was part of the proposal or is a correct
interpretation of the proposal I voted on ( since it had the explicit
mention that project can sponsor a component ). It may be valid in the
modified proposal - where "they can develop the component but must release
it as part of the project release " - but that's not what was agreed on.
It's scary that a proposal can be "edited" or "clarified" in such a
significant way after it was finalized and without a vote.
Costin
